Cog wrote:Godwin's Law strikes again. You can count on Cid to always deliver the goods. LOL

I saw Trump drink a glass of water. Hitler drank water as well. Trump is literally Hitler.

Cid's had a Hitler obsession for years. He's this site's own compulsive breaker of Godwin's Law.

AND its not just Trump---everything and anything makes Cid think of Hitler. Cid just has a thing for Hitler.

In this thread we were talking about science and geoengineering.....and even mentioning science triggered off a little grey cell in Cid's brain that made him post over and over again about Hitler. If it wasn't so weird it would be funny.

This means you, Cid.

Last edited by Plantagenet on Fri 14 Apr 2017, 11:25:16, edited 1 time in total.

"One of the dirty little secrets of the IPCC is that it requires negative emissions," Long said, referring to the process of recapturing CO2 that has already been released. No existing models predict staying below the necessary levels, she said, which means that it's not enough to simply stop emitting carbon dioxide; further steps will need to be taken to remove what's already in the air.

Just so everyone knows what the Trolls are on about: They immediately did their best to try to bury this post.Plant doesn't get his attempts at intimidation don't work with me. Godwin's Law is right wing nonsense.

If the Trump Administration attempts to do this geoengineering after being warned by scientists of the deaths globally that will result, they will be the worst mass murderers ever to walk the planet. They will also be violating international accords that could result in war.

David Schnare, an architect of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition, has lobbied the US government and testified to Senate in favour of federal support for geoengineering.

He has called for a multi-phase plan to fund research and conduct real-world testing within 18 months, deploy massive stratospheric spraying three years after, and continue spraying for a century, a duration geoengineers believe would be necessary to dial back the planet’s temperature.

Scientific modelling has shown that stratospheric spraying could drastically curtail rainfall throughout Asia, Africa and South America, causing severe droughts and threatening food supply for billions of people.

Cid, as you well know the captains of Crony Capitalism ie. Oligarchs have already much blood on their hands and much more will be on their hands as the living systems of Earth shutdown. Whether they go through with the geoengineering or not

I've looked back at some of your old posts and the general sentiment is that we're all gonna die anyway from AGW feedback loops. If the end result is the same, why is geoengineering mass-murder and the default trajectory of brown-tech and lifeboat-ethics not? It just seems like you're fishing around for some sort of cause you can wave the activist flag for when in the end we wind up pretty much exactly at the same spot. We all share the same planet and once we've broken the climate, we're FUBAR, period.

“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"--Onlooker, 1/1/2018

Cid_Yama wrote:If the Trump Administration attempts to do this geoengineering after being warned by scientists of the deaths globally that will result, they will be the worst mass murderers ever to walk the planet. They will also be violating international accords that could result in war.

The Harvard scientists carrying out the geoengineering experiment received the funding for the work during the Obama administration.

Cid_Yama wrote:If the Trump Administration attempts to do this geoengineering after being warned by scientists of the deaths globally that will result, they will be the worst mass murderers ever to walk the planet. They will also be violating international accords that could result in war.

We are talking mass murder. On a scale Hitler couldn't even dream of. By starvation and loss of surface water resources. All so we don't cut into Exxon's profits.

In fact, enhance Exxon profits by using their Geoengineering technology they so conveniently have already developed.

I thought Trump didn't believe in this 'climate change crap'?

Anyhow this isn't an easy topic because if you consider culpability on a global scale then we are all to different degrees culpable for the potential and current deaths that are arising from it. What we've got here is a dilemma because to act or not to act on this plane of action condemns us to some level of responsibility for our actions. To geoengineer or not to geoengineer is not the question. The real question is why the hell did we get to this point.

The other point is that we are in a no win scenario otherwise, so not acting could be worse in this instance than acting because either way we condemn billions to their death right?

At some point someone has to stand up and shout NO!

So will the next version be:

First to die were the Indians, but I was not Indian

Then died the South Americans, but I was not South American

Next died the Africans, but I was not African

Now we are dying, and there is no one to save us

Party at my place. I promise a relatively stable climate because of being smack in the middle of a giant ocean, and plenty of food with a good variety.

onlooker wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/carbon-dioxide-remove-atmosphere-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-scientists-jim-hansen-a7847426.htmlCarbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere to avoid extreme climate change, say scientists

The problem with removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is that it requires lots of energy to do so. In fact, more energy than was released by the burning FF's that spewed the carbon in the first place.

Let me know when you have discovered such an energy source. Otherwise, we are wasting time.

I was hoping someone can offer some of the latest and best ideas on VIABLE geoengieerig options or else we are just wasting time. And as scientists are conceding that appears to be our last option to avoid catastrophic climate change

onlooker wrote:I was hoping someone can offer some of the latest and best ideas on VIABLE geoengieerig options or else we are just wasting time. And as scientists are conceding that appears to be our last option to avoid catastrophic climate change

The new James Hansen paper calling for geoengineering wants to see more biochar.

This process involves growing a forest (or crops or whatever) and then "charring" them to convert them to charcoal. Then you bury the charcoal or dump it in a deep sea trench or something, thereby removing the charcoal in the burned wood from the carbon cycle.

Since the Paris Accords call for INCREASING CO2 emissions, we have to do something to remove the CO2....maybe someone will invent a solar biochar oven and we can use to incinerate all our forests.

Thanks Plant. Seems some inventive ideas out there.. I wonder if anyone of them stands out? Especially in regards to removing the CO2 already in the air and also methane considering that seems to be where science is predicting the most climate forcing to come from in the near term future

The whole idea of carbon sequestration has always been a bust. Perhaps none of you ever saw An Inconvenient Truth, aka Al Gore's silly movie with the hockey stick curve. Al showed video footage of his visit to a giant drilling platform that would have captured carbon dioxide via fractional distillation from the atmosphere, then pumped liquid carbon dioxide to down below the frigid arctic seabed where it would have formed methane hydrate deposits. The energy budget for this not so-efficient alternative required 350% as much energy as was originally released by burning the FF's.

Al Gore was all set up to make a real killing, he was selling shares and had a stock prospectus for his new venture, which was a company manufacturing the equipment for carbon sequestration via fractional distillation. He called his stock "the greatest investment opportunity since the petroleum boom". He also spoke of mandatory carbon sequestration from every 1st World Country, to exceed all of their total carbon emissions from every source. (Mandated by the UN under the auspices of a newly-empowered IPCC, of course....)

In the real world, those companies which manufacture the equipment to recover the methane hydrates from the ocean floor, then process them for natural gas production, proved to be better investments than was Al Gore's.

For all you AGW fanboys, the deposits of methane hydrates at the polar regions are estimated to contain the majority of carbon on the Earth. Something else for you to screetch about, I suppose.

Meanwhile, there are Geoengineering proposals to reclaim the Antarctic continent, heat it with the natural gas from methane hydrates, and increase the solar insolance via orbital mirrors to where we could grow food and people could live there. There would of course be some sea level rise associated with this, but we can always line all the continents we are actually using now with giant levees and dikes, like this:That would be REAL GEOENGINEERING, making a planet for 100+ billion humans to live on. We would of course increase the carbon content of the atmosphere to optimize plant growth, and moderate the equatorial temperatures by deflecting some portion of their natural sunlight to the Antarctic. We would be in effect making a colossal A/C for the tropics and making lots more temperate climate zones for humans to live in. Wanna talk about that?

KaiserJeep wrote:....there are Geoengineering proposals to reclaim the Antarctic continent, heat it with the natural gas from methane hydrates, and increase the solar insolance via orbital mirrors to where we could grow food and people could live there. There would of course be some sea level rise associated with this, but we can always line all the continents we are actually using now with giant levees and dikes, like this:That would be REAL GEOENGINEERING, making a planet for 100+ billion humans to live on. We would of course increase the carbon content of the atmosphere to optimize plant growth, and moderate the equatorial temperatures by deflecting some portion of their natural sunlight to the Antarctic. We would be in effect making a colossal A/C for the tropics and making lots more temperate climate zones for humans to live in. Wanna talk about that?

Sure.

For instance you say that melting all the ice in Antarctica would cause "some sea level rise" but we could build dikes to hold it back from our cities and fields.

If you do the math, melting Antartica (and might as well throw in Greenland and all other glaciers as well) would cause sea level to go up by 70 m (about 230 feet).

I seriously question if you could build a wall 250 feet high all around the current coastline to hold the sea back. Not even the Dutch could do that. Not even Trump could build a wall that big.

For instance you say that melting all the ice in Antarctica would cause "some sea level rise" but we could build dikes to hold it back from our cities and fields.

If you do the math, melting Antartica (and might as well throw in Greenland and all other glaciers as well) would cause sea level to go up by 70 m (about 230 feet).

I seriously question if you could build a wall 250 feet high all around the current coastline to hold the sea back. Not even the Dutch could do that. Not even Trump could build a wall that big.

And how much would it cost?

For comparison, Big Ben is about 300 feet high

Cheers!

The idea that we would melt all of the Antarctic ice into the sea is silly. We need fresh water for 100+ million people in this scenario, more than the planetary rainfall can provide. So we ship it as ice to the tropics, where it moderates the climate while providing a huge amount of water for human consumption.

Next Problem? Get serious, we are engineering the planet for human occupation, in un-thought-of numbers.

Yes, Kaiser is right we have been geoengineering the planet,. That is why scientists refer tof this Era as the Anthropocene. As reluctant as I am to concede this, our species must employ technology and science to save itself now. From biogenetics to cybernetics to geoengineering it's potential is enormous. But as always the caveat is ourselves and our potential to use all this for good or bad and wisely or unwisely. http://www.businessinsider.com/geoengin ... net-2017-7

We have geoengineered the planet already. We have failed massively at the project. To think we could possibly do it "right" the second time is pretty silly. Hell, could we even agree on what "right" is? I seriously doubt it.

My take is that, for better or worse, all we can do is stop doing what we are doing and then let nature take is course. Let the system find its own new equilibrium, if it can.

I think we are closing in on the point of the LTG curves where things start to break bad. Human population will decline, the USA empire will decline, Western Civilization will decline, and eventually carbon releases will decline. Perhaps in the end some higher life forms will survive. I think it will be hard to kill all bacteria so at least some life will likely survive.

Newfie, this is in line with what Ibon preaches of how overshoot consequences will create a new equilibrium. Unfortunately, our species has demonstrated little affinity for passive forethought especially in emergency situations. We seemed to be geared for the short term emergency situations. Once the emergency becomes universally apparent, we will aggressively seek solutions for better or worse.